Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2016-04-12-Speech-2-777-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20160412.43.2-777-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the fundamental EU principle of freedom of movement for people, services and goods may well have been well intentioned, but it can only remain so if it is reactive and updated, ideally integrating and responding to both external and internal threats and pressures. Its fundamental weaknesses lie in the turgid, lengthy and often outdated processes required to address what are now fast-moving events, not merely on the European continent but also on a global scale; but more fundamentally in the sacrosanct protection that it enjoys in the face of fundamental threats to civil society and citizens.
Trying to connect 28 Member States’ varied cultures and processes at a time of crisis, the EU is unable to anticipate events or to react at adequate speed to these events. This is not an approach capable of countering let alone beating terrorism. When there is a threat, it is important to think like the adversary and not bury oneself in mindless dialogue and consultation with the objective of protecting a sacred cow. The United Kingdom endured some 30 years of conflict and terrorist activities before a resolution in Northern Ireland was found. The UK has much to offer the European and international community on how to counter terrorism: not least money-laundering, a key element in terrorist funding and financing. But in contrast, the EU seems purely focused on unified border control and a central intelligence agency. But these so far have been total failures, critical weaknesses serving only to facilitate the recent terrorist atrocities.
Now again, the United Kingdom has led the way in combating international counter-terrorist efforts via the Five Eyes, Signet and as a founding member of the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum, and the UK will maintain those responsibilities, EU member or not. In contrast, the EU reaction to the migrant crisis has been unhelpful in the extreme and its reactions unhelpful and just like those of a rabbit in the headlights. The EU has its border control agency Frontex, which consumes several hundred million euros but is not operational and is little more than a data collection and analysis agency. It produces reports and stats, fine; it is supposed to coordinate the activities of Member States in border control according to its charter, but in fact it has no operational capability, and it has to rely on NATO, individual Member States and other operational forces to do anything useful. Indeed, we have a basic conflict of interests here for Frontex in that the EU mantra is open borders with no control. The EU probably never imagined that its open border mantra would encourage the movement of criminals, terrorists and weapons. The result has been that a number of countries have had to take unilateral action to defend their borders and actually, as a result, break their Treaty obligations.
But just look at INTCEN, set up as a fledgling European intelligence agency: yet another failure, doing little more than gathering data. The collection of data, such as fingerprints (already mentioned by others) at the borders within Europe, has been a disastrous example. Only 17% of migrants at key points of entry have been fingerprinted, and to make matters worse, even if their fingerprints have been taken, no one within the Member States has been allowed to share that data. There could be no greater gift to terrorism than being invisible and untraceable, yet this is what the European Union approach facilitates. We have talked about PNR, but that is stuck in turgid debate, as we well know. But there are issues about privacy and human rights, and I do wonder, having been criticised for the comment on frontier Europe, are we not actually building that?
For too many in this Parliament, the response is: for rectification of these failures, we need more Europe. And we heard that this afternoon. Why would anyone pour more money into an approach and into structures that are broken, ill-conceived and ineffective? These can be addressed, but just not by doing more of the same; that is the definition of an idiot. It could well be argued that the EU should stick to matters that it can usefully address and do well, but stay out of matters where it does not have the experience or capability. General Michael Hayden, ex-head of the NSA in the US, said security is a national issue. Now is the time for the EU and Parliament to open their eyes to what is going on and bear in mind that the future is – and this should be recognised – bilateral agreements based on good data exchange. Trusted data exchange and experience is the way forward, not trying to coerce 28 Member States to do one thing."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples